44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 12, 2023 11:00AM
- Jun/12/23 8:53:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member talked about family issues that may arise for members who sit in the House. I was listening attentively to that portion. However, the member must realize that in a hybrid Parliament, should this continue on, and I hoping that every single backbencher in all parties is aware of this, that eventually we will have no constituency weeks. We have constituency weeks so that we can go to back into our ridings and hear from constituents and work on individual files and then come back here, but in a hybrid Parliament, why would we have constituency weeks?
As someone who has three young kids, I have to sit here in evening sittings, which is something that was agreed to by the other parties, and so I cannot give them a call on FaceTime and cannot talk to them tonight. However, there are issues that will continue with hybrid parliaments. We will continue getting more and more invites to events in the riding, and people in the ridings will expect us to do both works at the exact same time: do our legislative work in the House and do all of our constituency events at the same time. In fact, I see hybrid Parliament as going after whatever family time we have left right now as parliamentarians. I would like the member to comment on that.
228 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 10:34:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am going to share my time with the member for Chatham-Kent—Leamington.
Members have heard me say before that I participated in the Standing Orders debates in the past. I think back to 2020, when Parliament resumed in a hybrid format. I think the Conservative caucus was one of the first to resume having full meetings. We were one of the first ones, if not the first, on Zoom. We had tested all the other different software systems and fell on Zoom as being the best one, and we requested our own server from the House administration and cybersecurity people so we could meet using that format. Within three meetings, we got interpretation services going, because it was incredibly important for us to keep having meetings bilingually.
I oppose the motion. I oppose the contents of the motion. I have said it from the beginning. I have been as consistent as I can be on this question. I still oppose it. I want to speak to the backbenchers in the Liberal benches about how bad this would be for all of us in the long term, but especially for those who are going to be in the government caucus in the long term.
I say this because eventually the parliamentary calendar will mean nothing. Eventually we will meet every single week because constituency weeks and legislative sessional weeks will blend together. There will be no difference between the two. We will be expected to do both our works, and our constituents will expect us to do everything at the same time. There will be no ground given for being away in the nation's capital on the floor of the House of Commons or in a committee debating the issues. There will be no difference made.
For all the events we will be invited to, there will be an expectation that we do everything at the same time. If someone is now participating in committee in a hybrid format from home, they are working. They are not watching their sick child. I had four kids; I have three kids now. I had a personal tragedy happen in my life and I was away for six weeks. I did not think about work during that time.
What we are going to be asking members to do is to work while sick. We are going to be asking members to work while a loved one is very sick. We are going to be asking them to do everything at the same time in those same weeks and to figure it out and balance it themselves. Members will get incredible pressure from their House leadership team and their leadership, whether that be from the Prime Minister's Office or the leader's office in opposition, whichever one it is. Incredible pressure will be put on the backbenchers. I say that as a former chair of the Conservative caucus, where my job was to speak on behalf of backbenchers in my own recognized caucus. The whole point of caucus chairs is to speak on behalf of the backbenchers.
There is not a single legislature in Canada that has moved to a full hybrid format. I do not quite know the territories so I will not speak to them, but none of the 10 legislatures have moved to a full hybrid dual format as far as I know. I have looked at them and they are not doing it.
This Parliament here is talking about permanently introducing measures we had agreed to doing and now are not.
The member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook is disagreeing with me and is not liking it, but we started with consensus and now we are being forced to have one system.
One of the offers made by Conservative members on the PROC committee was for us to perhaps have a sunset clause. Let the next Parliament decide. Give the next Parliament a year to see how things are working out with potentially new members who are here and to weigh the pros and the cons again of whether to continue with everything, with some or with nothing in hybrid.
I know what my position is. My position is not to continue with any of the hybrid format. There are a lot of interpreters who are injured. I have seen a lot of committee meetings be completely dysfunctional because it does not work very well even after all these years with Zoom. I have seen committees cancelled because there are not enough resources. It is always interesting the government is able, through its whips, to cancel the committee meetings it does not like versus the ones it really wants. There are not enough resources to go around for all the committees.
One of the Bloc MPs raised a great point that now we are meeting on Fridays. Fridays used to be a day when some members would return to their constituencies, especially those in marginal seats. I am looking at the members of the government caucus in marginal seats who would probably like to have a Friday where they can press the flesh, as we call it, or go meet constituents in the local coffee shops or community events or spend some time working on case files on Friday. Those of us who are not in marginal seats can spend more time on legislative work if we so choose.
What will happen in this chamber, not this year, not next year, but many years down the line, is our whips, our House leaders, will come together and ask why we have constituency weeks and say that all weeks should be legislative weeks. They will say that members could then pick and choose which weeks they would be here and which ones they would not be here.
Many other members have spoken about the downside that we will not be able to go up to a minister right after question period on a specific case file or will not be able to get to know other members. I will admit that I have not gotten to know most of those on the Liberal benches because, frankly, I have a hard time recognizing some of them as members when they rise in the House. I do not know what issues they are directly passionate about. I have been on some committees with some members and have gotten to know them a lot better. That builds trust. There is a reason we still have parliamentary associations that send legislators from the House and from the Senate overseas to meet other legislators in person. That is how we build a relationship with them. We do not build it over Zoom in boxes on a screen. That is not how we build relationships of trust.
Much of our committee work is based on trust. If we disagree on an issue, we may not get everything we want, but we usually suspend the meeting and are able to negotiate a resolution or a solution to whatever problem is before us. Then we continue doing the work on behalf of our constituents. At the end of the day, that is really what this is all about.
I know many people have talked about the voting app. Some people like it and some people dislike it. I will be the first to say that I dislike the voting app. I highly doubt many members are clicking on the little information button and checking exactly what they are voting on every single time. We see it sometimes happen. We have these giant screens in the House now, and we always look for that one member who did not get the memo from their whip's office and votes the wrong way on government legislation. I do not mean private members' bills, because those should be free votes and hopefully are always free votes.
We have Standing Order 44.1(1), which allows for the pairing of votes. I have written a letter in the past to the chair of PROC, which was shared among members of PROC, and I stand by what I wrote. Pairing is the way out of this. We should not expect members who are taking care of loved ones, who are going through a serious sickness at home or who have major family obligations to stay connected to their work. They can pair their votes like we do with cabinet ministers. Cabinet ministers can pair their votes. They usually pair them with members of the opposition when they are travelling overseas. Why can we not do more pairing in the House?
I have said that before. I said it during the previous Standing Order debate. Pairing is the solution, especially if we empower a member to pair. In fact, I will even say that during this Parliament, I actually paired one of my votes on a handshake with a Liberal member. That is the way it is supposed to be done. I trusted the member. I had gotten to know the member over the last few years, and I trusted him enough to turn around and go to my whip. Likewise, he did the same thing. He was paired so he would not have to take a long flight just to come back to Ottawa to be present to make sure that I would be present here as well, which is ridiculous. I trusted him as a gentleman. He trusted me as well, and we paired. Why can we not do more of that?
The app makes it unnecessary. We do not need to get to know anybody on the other side. We do not need to build a relationship of trust. We do not need to get to know anybody. In fact, in the future, we will be able to spend our time in boxes on screens and not get to know anybody. We will not need to talk to another person. We can just send emails, read speeches and read prepared questions and it will all be fine. I do not think that is the way Parliament should function. I do not think it is an improvement. I do not think it will have better transparency. There will not be better accountability.
We heard the parliamentary secretary, the member for Winnipeg North, mention Order Paper questions and the format in which they are provided and tabled in the House and how there has always been a member to do that. We have not talked about the quality of the Order Paper answers. The answers have gotten worse. It is something that started a decade ago, but they have gotten really bad now. They borderline on the ridiculous sometimes, where there is not even an attempt to answer the content. It is not always like that but sometimes.
1811 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 10:43:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member is now heckling me from across—
11 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 10:43:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I invite the member to look at the questions I submit, because I am always looking for data, content and information. That reminds me. With the member's interruption, I do have a Yiddish proverb. I hope that everything I have spoken about tonight are things I have seen. “Let you not say things that you have not seen” is a Yiddish proverb. I hope I have done that.
I have stayed consistent with what I have said in past debates on the Standing Orders. The House is built on consensus and trust, and what the government is doing here, because it has a coalition ally, is simply ramming through changes to the Standing Orders. The preference has always been that we do Standing Order changes by consensus. We do not always get everything we all want. We get what we can all agree on, which are small changes.
That has been the great thing about Parliament. Our rules protect backbenchers; they do not protect the front bench. These changes will protect the front bench from backbenchers. There are more backbenchers in the House, and this is the House for them and for their constituents, not for cabinet.
202 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 10:45:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his question, but that is not the issue we are examining in the House right now. The question before us is whether we should have a hybrid Parliament that operates in the way set out by the government in Motion No. 26.
During the pandemic, two of my three children, the two oldest, were attending school online. I was also the caucus chair. As such, I had a screen in front of me and I also had my two children sitting in front of me doing their online classes. I had to make sure they were paying attention to their classes. Then, there was the youngest who was watching television on mute because he wanted something to do.
That is not what being a parent is all about. It is not about being obligated to work for four and a half hours every Wednesday and spending two days getting ready to do that, while taking care of the kids who are also in virtual mode and who have things to learn and classes to take online. That is not what raising kids should be. After the pandemic, I do not think that is what parents want to see, even in the House.
211 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 10:47:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member for Berthier—Maskinongé is right. The amendments to the rules proposed in government Motion No. 26 will do away with the need for members to get along with one another.
It is easy for cabinet members to meet and talk to one another. They often meet during the week. These meetings are usually held in person, since they sometimes have to talk about confidential matters. However, for backbenchers, the only way to advance a file, to create a bill and amendments, is to talk face to face to build mutual trust.
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 10:49:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I just want to clarify, because I do not think the member quite understood what I was getting at.
What I am saying is that, in the future, what will happen is that constituency weeks will simply disappear. This may be two, three, four, five or six years from now. There will be an expectation that we do sessional weeks half of the year or more, and members will pick which weeks they will be in their constituencies. However, there will be this constant tension from our constituents and local organizations that a member must appear at all local events while doing all their work. I can even imagine a situation where members have committee business that they will have to conduct from their car while going to, say, a Legion hall for events related to veterans.
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
